381 Pa. Super. 181 - Commonwealth v. Doa’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
22 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently July 2013
22 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Simmons v. United States · Neil v. Biggers · Stovall v. Denno · Ohio v. Roberts · Manson v. Brathwaite
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The decision whether to sever the trials of co-defendants rests within the sound discretion of the trial judge and will not be disturbed on appeal absent a manifest abuse of discretion. Commonwealth v. Patterson, 519 Pa. 190 , [194], 546 A.2d 596, 599 (1988); Commonwealth v. Morales, 508 Pa. 51, 61 , 494 A.2d 367, 372 (1985); Commonwealth v. Thomas, 346 Pa.Super. 11, 19 , 498 A.2d 1345, 1349 (1985). “A joint trial of co-defendants is ‘advisable when the crimes charged grew out of the same acts and much of the same evidence is necessary or applicable to both defendants.’” Id., 346 Pa.Super. at 19 , 498 A.2d at 1349 , citing Morales, 508 Pa. at 61 , 494 A.2d at 372 . The probability of antagonistic defenses is a factor that a trial court must consider in deciding whether to grant a severance. Morales, 508 Pa. at 62 , 494 A.2d at 373 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“where an eyewitness has made a prior identification but is unable to identify the defendants at trial and another witness is called to testify as to the eyewitness’s prior identification.” Id. at 189 , 553 A.2d at 419 (footnote omitted). The court in Doa explained the rationale for admitting the prior identification by stating”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Tafokitau“situations where the witness is not in a position to clearly observe the assailant.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.